tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 14, 2015 8:30pm-10:31pm EST
yields one minute to the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i strongly support her amendment to h.r. 240 which prohibits federal funding or resources from being used to adjudicate any new, renewal, or previously denied application for the president's deferred action for childhood arrivals program. it is that simple. the president's daca program announced by the president and the secretary of the department of homeland security on june 15, 2015 violates the laws congress has written and is a user patient of plenary authority over immigration law that article 1, section 8 clause 4 of the united states constitution confers upon the legislative branch. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's amendment to defund daca. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may
consume. the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition to the amendment? mr. conyers: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you very much. i am very disturbed by the nature of this it it blackburn amendment because it would prevent the use of federal funds or resources to consider adjudicate, renewal of any previously denied application for deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca. or any subsequently similar program. this amendment is similar to the same blackburn bill that passed the house in august of 2014. this amendment clearly
terminates the daca program, the dreamers, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues. the amendment prevents new persons from applying for daca and explicitly prohibits further efforts to renew deferred action under this amendment. hundreds of thousands of young people who came forward past background checks obtained daca and have since followed the law would be deportable at the end of their two-year deferred action period. this is serious, it's dangerous. and the amendment is anti-immigrant and anti-family. this is a vote to deport dreamers. this application -- applicants
have applied for positive impacts on job growth and economy. the amendment would lead daca applicants without work authorization and with exposed -- would exposed many of them to deportation to a country that they don't even know. we should be passing legislation to keep daca recipients in our country because they have a net impact on our communities. the amendment is one more of the same anti-immigrant type rhetoric that has dominated conservatives and is further evidence that the majority is not interested in fixing our broken immigration system but is only interested in penalizing members of our community who seek to work, go to school, and remain with their family. i reserve the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield one minute to mr. marino from pennsylvania. he's one of our members who had truly a significant career as a prosecutor before coming to this chamber. at this time i yield to mr. marino. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one nu. mr. marino: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the blackburn amendment today. the amendment prevents funding from going towards the deferred action for children -- for childhood arrival programs known as daca. make no mistake about it. this program has become a magnet for drawing children from central america further putting thousands of children's lives at risk as they embark on a very dangerous journey which not only includes unsafe conditions, but also vulnerable to abuse along the way.
this program must be shut down. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not telling the american people that homeland security is fully funded. it's funded more than $1 billion than the president asked for and more than $400 million from last year. in homeland security gets shut down it's because the president vetoes the budget, because he cannot get his way on illegal aliens. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i am going tole give the balance of our time to the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has two minutes. mr. gutierrez: thank you so much. congressman conyers, leader conyers. i just want to go back one moment so that we can be very clear about this.
because i think we need to understand the difference between the rhetoric of today and the rhetoric of one year ago. this is one year ago. one of the greatest founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. i didn't write this. no one on our side of the aisle wrote this. i wish i would have. i'm sure we would have all been proud to have been co-authors or co-sponsors of that statement. what happened? what happened? one year later you're saying to those -- what happened to that principle? you just gave it up? doesn't mean anything to you anymore? don't care about children? you think children should be held responsible for the actions of their parents because that is precisely what you are saying today. because 600,000 young people came forward and did exactly this. then wait a minute. it gets better because you said
and we were so happy because we thought we were moving forward, because we thought the republican party was finally turning a page, you said, it is time to provide an opportunity for legal residents and citizenship for those who are brought to this country as children. what happened? at this want one of you to deny that this isn't one of the principles you took into your conference last year. it is what you took. what happened one year later? well you know here's what happened, i think. you guys always say the same thing. oh, it's that king from iowa, he tricks us at the last second. he brings in one of these poisonest things and there's nothing we can do about it. what excuse do you have today when you did it with all the premeditation and thoughtfulness and viciousness to bring this amendment forward with the support of your complete caucus? this is not a surprise. you sought this out. where are you going to move the country forward to?
let me tell you about one number. yeah, there's 600,000, there's 270 the electoral college. the number it takes to elect the president of the united states. you're out of reach there. the chair: the chair would ask they direct your remarks to the chair. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam chairman. how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: two minutes for the gentlelady and their time has expired. mrs. blackburn: their time has expired. thank you madam chairman. let's talk about a couple of these things. the democrats like to say, madam chairman, that this is radical. let me ask you a question. let me ask my colleagues a question. is it radical to support the rule of law? is it radical to fight for american workers who are going to lose their jobs to illegal aliens? is it radical to prioritize to prioritize legal immigrants that
are coming to this country? is it radical to try to protect children that are in this program via the office of refugee resettlement? democrats are over there saying that republicans are playing politics with national security. let me ask you another question. why were they saying nothing this summer when the southern border was being overrun and all sorts of trafficking, human trafficking sex trafficking, weapons trafficking, drug trafficking. here are the facts. daca became effective august 15 2012. in fiscal year 2014, the office of refugee released 53,518 unaccompanied children here in the u.s. it is a magnet. 75% of all americans reject the obama executive amnesty.
80% of the americans don't want foreign workers taking jobs from americans. those are the facts, madam chairman. and to my colleagues, that is why we are here. we have two choices. we are either a nation of laws or we are lawless. president obama is turning every state into a border state, every town into a border town. and unfortunately the lawless amnesty has taken democrats from the party of yes we can to acting like the party of because we can. with that, madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. . mrs. blackburn: madam chairman, i ask for a recorded vote.
the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be pod. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. desantis: mr. speaker i'd like to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-2 offered by mr. desantis of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27, the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. desantis: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my colleague from alabama mrs. roby. mrs. roby: i thank the gentleman, madam chair. i rise today in support of h.r.
240, the homeland security appropriations act, and to offer this amendment alongside my colleague mr. desantis of florida. if we're going to fix a broken immigration law, the way to do it is to uphold the rule of law, not undermine it. president obama has offered amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and that not only undermines the rule of law it threatens american jobs. it is dangerous and irresponsible. i am proud to have worked alongside my colleagues, including mr. aderholt from alabama, to get this bill to the floor today so that we can responsibly fund the department of homeland security but also defund the president's unlawful executive amnesty. madam chair, you want a great example of why the president, acting ube laterally to -- unilaterally to circumvent
congress, this amendment we're offering today demonstrates that. right now illegal immigrants convicted of child abuse sexual offenders and domestic abusers are not a top priority for deportation in this country. this amendment simply makes them a priority for deportation. this is the example as to why the president circumventing congress is not only a bad idea but undermines the law. i ask my colleagues to not only support this very important amendment but also to support the underlying bill that uses the power of the purse congress' responsibility to defund the unlawful, unconstitutional acts of this president and his executive amnesty. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to claim time in opposition.
the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: this amendment is unlawful and harmful. the memorandum by the department of homeland security already makes these crimes -- these people convicted of these crimes inyou will jeble for deferred action and already -- ineligible for deferred action and already makes them available for deportation. at best, this amendment is duplicative but it does something else. in the demmum, it provides, in whether the offense is a misdemeanor involving domestic violence, careful consideration should be given to see whether the alien is a victim of domestic violence. if so it is a mitigating factor. this amendment leaves that out. that's why so many supporters of services of domestic
violence is opposing this amendment, and that includes the national task force to end domestic and sexual violence, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, leo, the law enforcements group. they oppose this because they say it will make victims of domestic violence less able to seek help, also willing to call the police and more likely to remain victims of domestic violence. let me make it clear. people who are convicted of aggravated felonies, which includes child molestation, it includes child pornography, rape any crime of violence or -- they are a top priority for deportation. they are excluded from relief under what the president did. as are significant misdemeanors, which includes convictions of domestic
violence. so this is really much simpler than it looks. this is trying to correct a problem that does not exist but also creates a problem for domestic violence victims in the solution to a nonproblem. and i would yield to the gentleman from texas for a unanimous consent request. mr. green: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place into the record a statement supporting the clean homeland security appropriations bill that has bipartisan support and opposing the republican amendments. the chair: without objection. mr. green: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the chairman of the house judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from ohio -- virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for the work of himself and mrs. roby on this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
this amendment simply requires the department of homeland security to treat any alien convicted of any offense involving domestic violence sexual abuse child molestation or child abuse or exploitation as a top priority for immigration enforcement. unfortunately, the current priorities created by the obama administration on november 20, 2014 treats certain aliens convibblingted -- convicted of domestic violence convicted of sexual abuse or convicted of exploitation as a secondary priority. while aliens convicted of a significant misdemeanor, such as domestic violence, sexual abuse or exploitation are deemed a secondary priority for removal, they can stay in the united states in controvention of duly inactive law. this amendment corrects the irresponsible policies of the obama administration and ensures that criminal aliens convicted of domestic violence and sexual abuse are treated as top priority for removal. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: madam chairman i would yield to the leader -- the democratic leader, nancy pelosi one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank her for her exceptional leadership and that of the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers, and the work of your staff to bring the facts to the floor on this subject. i rise in opposition to all of these amendments for reasons that i spelled out for half an hour last night. not to go into them again. but i want to just say how disconcerting it is after we've seen the president act with authority in the law -- under the law and also according to precedent of every president, democratic and republican, since president eisenhower.
that's why it's very disturbing to see the speaker of the house by saying that president obama has cemented his legacy of lawlessness. legacy of lawlessness. that's just simply not -- president reagan lawless was president george herbert walker bush lawless was president bush lawless? i never heard about any executive action taken by them. i want to speak specifically to the desantis amendment, opposition contained in the letter of the national conference of catholic bishops. on behalf of the bishops they write to ask that we oppose immigration-related amendments in the bill. specifically, to desantis they say that representative desantis' amendment, the bishops say, would prevent the department of homeland security from implementing the memoranda several setting immigrant enforcement priorities. while presented as a measure
that helps domestic violence victims, we fear that it actually would discourage many such victims from reporting abuse. immigrants face on tackles of reporting crimes that have been perpetrated against them. this amendment would perpetuate this problem. so i urge our colleagues to vote no on all of the amendments call to their attention the letter from the bishops urging a no vote on the amendments and submit it for the record. and, again, say that what is disturbing about this -- we have a difference of opinion about immigration or this or that, but to describe the president as lawlessness, to use the constitution as the basis for this debate when in fact the courts have upheld the rights of our presidents to act -- take executive action in relationship to protecting immigrants in our country.
every president, democratic and republican from president eisenhower to the president. i urge a no vote on all of the amendments particularly in this case the desantis amendment and submit the bishops' letter for the record in opposition to those amendments. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: madam speaker, i recognize myself for the remaining time. the president likes to say that he wants to focus all of our resources are on the criminals and yet over the last two years , by d.h.s.'s own figures, this administration has released 66,000 individuals who have been criminally convicted in our country and who are illegally in our country. and the number of crimes and the quality of crimes is stunning. some homicides, some rape, some drug trafficking, and so i think you've seen a record developed over the last several
years that has put the public safety at risk. and so i'm per plucksed why someone would oppose this amendment. if someone is convicted of molesting a child, maybe it doesn't qualify under the highest priority. the administration wants to dismiss it as a significant misdemeanor. why would we have any tolerance for child molesters? if you get convicted of an offense like that, you should be gone. we shouldn't be discussing it. and the fact of the matter is, as a prosecutor you have to make some tough decisions. you may not be able to put a young child victim on the stand. you may have problems with evidence and you may have to do a plea to a lesser charge because of the family's concerns and because what that could do to a victim. that perpetrator is no less dangerous to the community and to our society. so i think the people are going to vote no on this are basically saying we don't want a zero tolerance policy against child molesters and sexual
offenders. i don't care what offense it is. you touch a child, you're here illegally, you're gone. i urge people to vote in favor of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chair, i'd yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maryland. the chair: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you madam chair, and thank you to the gentlelady for yielding the time. i'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women opposing the desantis-roby amendment. the chair: does the lady request -- the request will be covered by general leave. ms. edwards: thank you. and thank you, again. as a founder and former executive director of the national network to end domestic violence, i join the network of every state domestic violence coalition and the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women in opposing this
amendment. this issue is really very simple. often, too often of cases of domestic violence law enforcement show up at a home, they can't figure out what happened, both parties are arrested and down the line both plea to misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. it happens all the time all around the country. for the victim it may be because she just wants to get it out of the way or get it behind her or get back to her children or she's been threatened with further violence by her abuser or with her immigration status held over her head. whatever the reason it turns out that in too many of these circumstances no one, not law enforcement or prosecutors or judges or even her attorney, if she's fortunate to have one, no one tells her that by pleading to the misdemeanor her immigration status is threatened and she faces deportation. so this is not about fault. it just means that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to domestic violence. it's why we re-authorized the violence against women act in the last congress. and here's the harm. this amendment would prevent immigration authorities from looking beneath the surface in
circumstances only of domestic violence offenses to make absolutely certain that we're not victimizing the victim twice by subjecting her to deportation. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous amendment that could result in additional violence and undoing what successful congresses, republicans and democrats have done for over 20 years, provide protection for vulnerable immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. and so let's get the facts straight. this is not about shielding perpetrators, it's about protecting victims. our immigration authorities deserve to take a second look when it comes to domestic violence. and i urge my colleagues to vote no, to do no harm and vote no on the desantis-roby amendment. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida mr. desantis. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. lofgren: i ask for a
recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. . it is now in order to - amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 presented in part b of house report number 114-2. offered by mr. salmon of arizona. the the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27 the gentleman from arizona mr. salmon, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. salmon: thank you madam chairman. first i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania co-author of this amendment mr. thompson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you for yielding. thank you to the chairman. my colleague from arizona, congressman salmon for your work on this legislation and
this amendment. i rise in support of thal mon-thompson -- of the salmon-thompson amendment. daca protects a large number of unlawfully resident aliens from deportation. in addition to constitutional concerns and national security implications madam chair, the action poses a range of unintended consequences. case in point the president's policy creates a incentive to hire illegal immigrants over lawfully present workers. illegal aliens who are granted deferred action are exempt from being counted under the 2010 health care law's employer mandate. which requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance or pay a penalty. essentially the president's create add situation where employers face a penalty for hiring americans over illegal aliens. madam chairman, the president's current deferred action expansion promotes the hiring of individuals who have broken the law. over the men and women who have
come through legal channels worked hard, and played by the rules. congressman salmon and i are proud to offer this commonsense amendment. the amendment merely states it is the sense of congress that this administration should not pursue any actions to put the actions of illegal immigrants and illegal workers -- illegal immigrants before u.s. workers. i encourage all my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote yes on the salmon-thompson amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: madam speaker, the barbaric killing in paris last week of 17 innocent human beings, including two police officers, is a stark reminder of the high price we sometimes pay to exercise our freedoms. including our freedom of speech. here in this house we exercise that freedom every day on this
floor. but that freedom comes with the responsibility. we are all entitled to our own opinions and we can express them here. but we are not entitled to our own set of facts. this sense of congress fails in that responsibility. first, it misappropriates the facts but worse it misrepresents the facts. the affordable care act prohibits the precise activity and conduct by employers that this sense of congress says it's trying to prohibit. in fact, the affordable care act has explicit language, and i will for the record, submit -- ask unanimous consent to submit section 29 u.s. code section 218-c, protections for employees, which specifically prohibits an employer from discriminating against an american citizen who works for that employer for the purposes
of hiring someone who doesn't have a right to work and therefore will not get insurance. the worst part of this sense of congress -- try to mislead the american people to think something's going on that isn't. if it is going on, in the time the gentleman has to push his amendment, i urge him to name the name of an employer who is doing this to an american citizen who should be allowed to work w that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the request made by the gentleman will be held by general leave. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. salmon: i yield one minute to the chairman of the full committee on judiciary and the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one min . goodlatte: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment by representative salmon and thompson. the amendment expresses the sense of congress that u.s. workers should not be harmed by president obama's unilateral executive action program. these programs have certainly given american employers a financial incentive to hire unlawful aliens over american
citizens and legal immigrants. the fact is in many cases a business now has a $3,000 incentive to hire an unlawful immigrant who benefited from the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. this is because under obamacare, many businesses face a $3,000 per employee penalty if they do not provide health insurance to their workers. however unlawful immigrants granted daca relief and most likely most benefiting from president obama's new deferred action program are not eligible for obamacare. thus, in many cases employers will not have to pay this penalty if they hire deferred action recipients rather than legal workers. it is simply indefensible public policy for the obama administration to give unlawful aliens a leg up over legal workers. yet that is the result of the president's unilateral executive action. i urge my colleagues to support this good amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. becerra: i'd like to yield
one minute to the gentleman on the ways and means committee, from in nnl, mr. pascrell. -- from new jersey, mr. prasskell. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one -- mr. pascrell. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minut the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. pascrell: i want to report to the other side that you are already on retreat. as a mart you have retreated from our -- as a party you have retreated from our solemn oaths, camouflaged by highest anti-pieric acclamations of patriotism and liberty. these are not sick people you're talking about. -- stick people you're talking about. these are real people. they are not despots, they are not money changers, they are not felons they are human equals to you and me. you have a bumper sticker mentality without the bumper. for years and years all we heard is read the bill. well, we have read the bill and in fact i helped write the a.c.a., i'm proud of that.
there is nothing in the a.c.a. where the president's executive order that treats people on temporary status under the a.c.a. differently than u.s. citizens for the purposes of triggering the employer mandate. the whole purpose of this amendment is to play into fears that by allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows and work legally and pay taxes you're undermining american workers. that is a lie. admit it. nothing in this a.c.a. incentivizes employers to hire undocumented immigrants over american citizens. in fact, just the opposite as you heard the speaker before me. specifically prohibits employers from firing a citizen employee because they receive a premium tax credit. read the bill. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to obscure what the president did here with this executive order, provide responsible solutions to prevent families
from -- being torn apart even further. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and have a nice retreat. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. salmon: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself so much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. salmon: thank you. madam chairman, they say sunlight's the best disinfectant. we are trying to shed sunlight on some of the problems with the president's unconstitutional and illegal executive order of last year. i'm incredulous that the leader of the opposition has now encouraged the members of the opposition to vote en bloc against all these commonsense amendments. defending the american worker, protecting the american worker. and cracking down on the
plesters -- molesters and sex offenders and making sure they don't have a haven here in america. and making sure that those that want legal immigration are the first and foremost that we consider in this process and that those that cheated the system have to get behind those folks that are doing it legally before their paperwork can be processed. it's incredulous that the other side would oppose such commonsense measures that i believe most of america is crying for. people are hurting out there. maybe they haven't gotten the memo, but i think most of us have. the other thing that's incredulous is that when you hear a lot of squealing, you know when you hit a raw nerve, you know there's some truth to what's being spoken. this amendment is simply a sense of congress that we don't give a $3,000 benefit to those that have cheated the system. that we don't give $3,000
advantage to them over hardworking, tax paying american citizens that have been out of work for quite some time. as we know, president obama recently issued a series of memos that would essentially grant legal status to millions of people residing illegally within the borders of the united states. unfortunately, this is not the first time that such action's been taken by this administration. and history has a habit of repeating itself. under deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca, up to 1.7 million individuals were granted legal status and were allowed to cut in line, being given preferential treatment over those who respected our laws and waited patiently for their immigration cases to be processed. furthermore while those individuals who were given legal status under daca were initially required to purchase health insurance under obamacare. they were later exempted from that requirement.
with this exemption those given legal status under daca are not required to purchase insurance. we just don't want that to happen again. i would urge the other side to stand up for the american worker. that's why we are here. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. it the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. becerra: madam leader, at this stage i would like to yield one minute to the vice chairman of the house democratic caucus and member from new york, mr. crowley, one minute. the chair: before recognizing the gentleman from new york, the chair will remind members to refrain from improper references to the president. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: madam chair i think my republican colleagues take the american people for fools. madam chair, i lost too many constituents and friends on 9/11. i lost people who i loved on 9/11. in the years since then, new york city has been the focus of attempted terrorist plots, too numerous to name. homeland security funding is something that i take very seriously because it is so -- so
much a part of a new yorker's life. frankly, i respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take it as seriously as well. for this is not a serious effort by any stretch of the imagination. you know what's good for our national security? bringing people out of the shadows so they -- so that we know who is in our country. focusing our limited enforcement resources on true threats to our country. and not holding up needed funding for security and law enforcement programs to make a political point. it's a political point they are trying to make. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle genuinely think our immigration system should deport parents instead of true criminals, if you want to destroy all our economic gains and throw a sucker punch to our economy by deporting 11 million people you know what? bring a bill up on the floor and let's have a real debate on all those issues. don't walk in here and tell me
and the american people that this garbage belongs in the homeland security funding bill. don't tell the american people that. they are not suckers and they are not fools. they know what you're doing. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would ask members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from california is recognized. for 30 seconds. mr. becerra: i thank the chair woman. i ask if the proponents would name the name of an american who has been discriminated against. the name of an employer who has discriminated against an american worker. they gave none. this is all anecdotal, these are all stories. they don't have anything to do with the fact we need to pass the homeland security bill because we are jeopardizing the funding for our security. are people tone deaf to what happened in paris they would do these amendments at a time when we need to support our men and women who protect us through
homeland security? this is wrong and that is why we oppose this senseless sense of congress amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona mr. salmon. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. salmon: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. schock: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designatehe amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report number 114-2, offered by mr. schock of illinois. .
the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. schock: thank you, madam speaker. there are currently 4.4 million people ready to enter this country through legal channels. many of them have been waiting for years. they've saved their money. they've filled out all the proper forms. they've paid their fees. this amendment is about doing right by them and their families. it's about making sure the men and women who play by the rules receive the fair treatment they were promised. congress must send a clear message to the administration and the american people -- we are committed to fixing what is broken about our immigration system but not at the expense of law-abiding immigrants. in recent weeks, i worked with the heritage foundation to identify seven failing programs at usgis that are at most need of improvements.
one of the most egregious example is $792 million that they spent between 2008 and 2012 to create an online system for applicants to file forms and pay fees. after $700 million spent and four years of time, only two forms out of 100 and one out of 73 different fees can be processed online. the administration's repeated inability to build a website that works, well documented as is by now, is compounded by its eagerness to bypass the constitution and break the law. had the president wished to show real leadership on immigration reform, he could have used his executive authority to promote greater efficiency and cost-saving measures within the system. and had he done so, i suspect there would have been overwhelming support in this
congress. but regrettably, that is not the course he chose, and it's why this congress must act. we have a responsibility to american taxpayers and to millions of immigrants to establish spending priorities at usdis and eliminating wasteful spending in the immigration system is an important components of our responsibility and a first great step in achieving comprehensive reform. ensuring that fees paid by lawful applicants are not used to fast track those who break the law strikes at the heart of our oath of office. during my time in congress, the 18th district of illinois has welcomed more than 2,600 new stents many of whom faced a long road to get here. but there are still thousands more who are waiting. and not because their paperwork isn't in order, not because they have something in their record and not because of anything other than a broken
system. take charles from peoria. he's been trying to get his fiancee to join him in the united states since january of 2012. for more than two years charles has waited. he's struggled with the financial support requirements. he's been unable to travel to see her. he had his application postponed time and time again. why? because charles is a quadriplegic on disability. take danny from jacksonville, illinois. works two shifts at a meatpacking facility. he applied and paid for his green card on october 4 2013. his green card was mailed to the wrong address. even though it was properly done on his paperwork and it was in order. danny lost his job because he couldn't show his green card to his employer and after many months of lost wages uscis admitted to my office and to danny that they screwed up and made a mistake. now more than a year later,
danny finally receives his green card and went back to work. but not before our broken system cost him a year's worth of wages. madam speaker, these stories could be repeated hundreds of times in my congressional office alone, tens of thousands of times across this body in republican and democrat districts alike. the system is failing our constituents. their families, their loved ones. it's failing businesses in our districts. it's failing daycare facilities and major manufacturers. so yes, mr. president, the system is broken, but the way to fix a broken system is not to overload the system by fast tracking five million more people. madam speaker, as if these hardworking taxpayers, these hardworking people are sitting at a toll booth -- >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. schock: yes, sir, i will. how much time is remaining?
mr. carter: how much time is remaining? the chair: seconds. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognion ms. lofen: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: this amendment is premised on a mistake and understanding of how uscis actually works. here's a fact that some people may not know. the uscis is funded, not by the taxpayers, it's funded by the fees of the applicants. and so the amendment seems to assume that the -- if you are out of status somehow somebody else is paying for you, the taxpayers or some other applicant. that's not the case. each applicant pays the money of processing their own fees. it does not delay others.
what this amendment would do would not just deal with daca applicants. it wyoming pact people who i don't think want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. for example, people who are victims of torture can come to the united states and make a case, plea for political asylum. they file a petition to do that. this amendment would say their petitions can't be heard. people who are victims of domestic violence, we created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. that would -- those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner. victims of sex trafficking are eligible for a visa, that's something we created in law. according to this amendment, people who -- sex trafficking victims would not be eligible to have their petitions processed in a timely manner.
and here's something else. most of the petitions that are adjudicated are family-based. so if you have your american citizen daughter marries somebody from another country, she can petition so that her husband can become a legal resident of the united states. if that husband is out of status, that petition would not be petitioned. i don't think we want to do what this amendment suggests we should do and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves? mr. schock: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i'd yield for unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to place my statement in opposition to this amendment and others that play politics with the security and safety of america. i ask unanimous consent to place it in the record. the chair: without objection. ms. lofgren: i yield to my colleague and compatriot on the
judiciary committee, the gentlelady from texas, 1.5 minutes, a minute and a half. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you madam chair. and the ranking member for his leadership. this is a full force assault on immigrants. it is an assault on the integrity of this nation that was built upon the investment and the love of this country by immigrants from all over the world. and as i look to the landscape of what we now confront 2,000 dead in nigeria by boko haram, little girls dressed with suicide bombs and homeland security being held hostage by the assault on immigration. let me say to you that the constitution has given the president the authority under the take care provision. and so this assault of amendments trying to chip away at these executive actions is a false premise in order to
attack the ideas and the values of this nation. in my home state, if the actions of the president are in place we'll gain $8.2 billion in gross domestic product and $19.2 over a 10-year decade. do you think we need the underlying amendment or amendments, plural? pastors and religious leaders the episcopal bishops have indicated that they support the executive action. the cast lick bishops supports the executive action. the aderholt amendment wants to attack those young dreamers who want to invest in young soldiers. the blackburn amendment wants to take away, if you will, the childhood arrivals. and desantis wants to misrepresent to victims of human trafficking and domestic violence. and mr. salmon and his amendment wants to suggest that workers are being hired over american workers. and mr. schock wants to ignore the investment of this particular language into this nation.
let me end by saying this is an attack on immigrants. let's vote against all of these. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois reserves? mr. schock: we reserve. ms. lofgren: i believe we have the right to close so we would reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has the right to close. he has 15 seconds remaining. ms. lofgren: all right. then at this point i'd yield the balance of our time to the ranking member of our full committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, madam chair. members of the committee i oppose the schock amendment for many of the numerous reasons that have already been stated by our colleagues. but i want to make sure that we're all perfectly clear on what is occurring on the house floor today. the majority is unfortunately
playing politics with the lives, safety and security of the american people. the ideologues are holding funding for homeland security department hostage here today. that is not right. and they would rather deport dreamers, the kids and their parents rather than fund the department of homeland security. in the wake of the recent paris tragedy we need to remain vigilant with smart enforcement policies that protect americans. the department of homeland security plays a central role in our fight against terror, and we must fully fund their efforts as soon as possible. we should not be attaching
poison pill amendments to this important legislation. and so i urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to really join us and govern with a sense of far more responsibility. i yield back the balance of my time. choim the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for5 cd mr. schock: madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time to my friend and distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. and let me thank all of my colleagues who've worked to put this bill together. today i rise and the house rises to support and defend our constitution. we do not take this action lightly but simply there is no alternative. this is not a dispute between
the parties or even between the branches of our government. this executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the constitution itself. i appreciate all the efforts of those working to fix our broken immigration system, especially since i'm one of them. what we're dealing with is a president who's ignored the people who's ignored the constitution and even his own past statements. in fact, on at least 22 occasions he said he did not have the authority to do what he has done. before he became president on march 31, 2008, the president said, and i quote i take the constitution very seriously. the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with a president trying to not
go through congress at all and that's what i intend to reverse when i'm president. on may 19, 2008 the president said, and i quote i believe in the constitution and i will obey the constitution of the united states. after he was president on may 5 2010, the president said, and i quote anybody who tells you that i can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works. on july 1, 2010, the president said, and i quote, there are those who have argued passionately that we should at least ignore the laws on the books. i believe such an indiscriminant approach would be both unwise and unfair. . on october 14, 2010rk the president said, and i quote, i do have an obligation to make sure that i'm following some of
the rules. i can't simply ignore the laws that are out there. on october 25, 2010, the president said, and i quote, i am president i am not king, i can't do these things just by myself. i can't just make up the laws by myself. on march 28 2011, the president said, and i quote, america is a nation of laws which means that i as president am obligated to enforce the law. on april 20 2011, the president said, and i quote, i can't solve this problem by myself. i just can't do it by myself. on april 29, 2011, the president said, and i quote, some here wish i could just bypass congress and change the law myself. but that's not how democracy works.
on may 10 2011, the president said, and quote they wish i could just bypass congress and chiang the law myself, but that's not how democracy works. on july 25 2011 the president said, and i quote, the identify deef doing these things on my own is very tempting, but that's not how our system works. that's not how how our democracy functions. that's not how our constitution is written. on september 28 2011, the president said and i quote, we live in a democracy. we have to pass bills through the legislature, then i can sign them. on september 20, 2012, the president said, and i quote what i have always said is that, as head of the executive branch there's a limit to what i can do. on october 16, 2012 the
president said, and i quote, we are a nation of laws and i have done everything i can on my own. on january 30, 2013, the president said, and i quote, i am not a king. i'm head of the executive branch. i'm required to follow the law. january 30, 2013, the president also said, and i quote, i'm not a king. you know my job as head of the executive branch is ultimately to carry out the law. february 14 2013, the president said, and i quote, the problem is that i'm the president of the united states, i'm not the emperor of the united states. july 16 2013, the president said and i quote i think it is very important for us to
recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. september 17, 2013, the president said and i quote, my job in the geckive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. but if we start broadening that then essentially i would be ignoring the law. on november 25 2013, the president said, and i quote, the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend can i do something by violating our laws. that's not our tradition. on march 6 2014 the president said, and i quote, i cannot ignore those laws any more than i could ignore any other of the laws on our books. and on august 6 2014, the president said, and i quote, i
am bound by the constitution. i am bound by the separations of powers. to think that the president of the united states actually studied constitutional law is one thing. he didn't just teach or learn constitutional law, he taught it as well. but now his actions suggest that he's forgotten what these words even mean. enough is enough. by their votes last november the people made clear they wanted more accountability from this president. and by our votes here today we will heed their will and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the constitution >> some congressmen sent tweets
about how they voted. michael mccaul said, i voted to block funding. representative shall tweets, -- michelle tweets, i voted against the bill because it includes amendments to undermine steps taken to fix our immigration system. the white house agrees, saying president obama will not sign any bill that blocks his executive actions on immigration. republican members of the house and senate are now headed to hershey, pennsylvania, for their first joint retreat in 10 years. they will be strategizing on how to work together while republicans control both sides of congress for the next two years. jay leno and tony blair will
speak at the retreat. >> the guests this sunday on q&a is on the front line battling against infectious diseases. >> we have drugs right now, when given to somebody age iv infected -- somebody hiv-infected the median survival would be 6-8 months. which means half of them would be dead in eight months. now, if tomorrow when i go back to rounds on friday and so becomes an s someone comes in -- and someone comes in relatively recently infected, and i put them on a cocktail of three drugs, i can accurately predict and say, we can do mathematical modeling to say you can live
an additional 55 years. to go from knowing 50% of the people are going to die and eight months, to knowing you can essentially live a normal life span. just a few years less than normal. that is a huge advance covered >> the rector of the national institute of infectious diseases. on c-span's q and a. >> on his annual remarks of the state of american business chamber of commerce president thomas donohue called on commerce to pass cyber security and immigration bills. he took questions from reporters in this part of the event. >> all right. thank you very much for your
patience and for coming today. as you know, i'm tom donohue, president of the chamber. and in just a few minutes ago i delivered our annual look at the economy and business and what we might expect from others and what you could expect from us this year. if you missed it, there's a copy of the speech they're giving you, as is always the question, the case, but not last year. because he was in the hospital scared the hell out of us. bruce josten who is our executive vice president of all things we do with government and related matters. a number of our senior advisors are here that handle many of these subjects and so they're over there and they're over there. you can catch them all at the end of your questions and pursue
some of your issues in more depth. as i said in the speech, the chamber believes the state of american business is improving. and that the economy is gaining momentum. we expect growth to be in the 3% to 3.5% range, at least in the middle of the year. when we look beyond the near term, the outlook is less certain. business faces a host of challenges and uncertainties including economic weakness abroad, which is very significant, by the way, and unprecedented regulatory onslaught here at home and new cybersecurity threats, among many others. while things are improving, the current policies of tax, spend and regulate aren't cutting it. in fact, we have eroded our economy's long-term potential for the growth of the economy because of some of these factors. so instead of taking a victory
lap, the administration, the congress and all of us have got to heed the lesson of the last election, work together to advance jobs and growth and raise america's take-home pay. divided government is not an excuse to do nothing. it's an opportunity to work together. it's to everyone's benefit. we know it won't be easy, but with new people in congress, with a president who hopefully will be tending to his long-term legacy, we think we can get some important things done for business, for workers and for the american people. now, our agenda is simple. what we're asking leaders to do in 2015 is to rally around the common bipartisan cause, stronger and deeper economic growth in order to create jobs and expand opportunities for all americans. the chamber will be pursuing three very quickly, i'll say
things to help achieve that. first, we're going to aggressively advance our jobs growth and opportunity agenda that capitalizes on the extraordinary potential we have in trade, energy, technology and infrastructure. second, we're going to build support for a government reform agenda. this is not an individual regulation or something. it's reforming the agenda. how we make regulations. that eases uncertainty and supports growth by improving immigration, the regulatory process, the tax code, entitlement programs, the legal system and very importantly our public schools. and third the chamber's going to vigorously defend a set of fundamental american values that define who we are as a people. and what made us the most free most prosperous and the most compassionate country on earth.
i'm talking about the right to speak, the right to due process under the law, the right to participate in a free enterprise system, where you can take a risk, you can work hard and achieve your dreams. and we should all be concerned by the steady erosion of these rights and freedoms on a federal and state level. most of all, we'll fight to preserve the spirit of enterprise in america. this is the real economic populism. we're all talking about economic populism. we have a set of economic populisms we really believe in. it's reflected in the more than 28 million businesses of all sizes in every community in this country. america's enterprise system is not perfect. we want to say that right up front. but it's built on the most successful economy in the history of the world and it's built, it's been built from the bottom up and this is the populism that really works.
last two thoughts. a populism based on trickledown government, with an ever-growing power accruing to washington cannot work because with it our economy cannot grow. instead we need policies that support, expand and celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit and make sure that it thrives. not just in business, but in everything we do in this country. and with that we'll take all your questions. wait a second, i have to tell you the rules of engagement. you have to tell us who you are and know that if it's a really tough question, i'm going to let bruce answer it. [laughter] >> we're going to start right over here. >> ok. >> thanks so much for having me. i'm with "the hill.” you mentioned in 2015 that the ♪ -- the chamber's going to have in this renewed push on
regulatory reform. can you talk about that strategy? >> in the last session of the congress, we passed a three-part -- we didn't pass it, the congress passed it with our encouragement, a three-part reform of the regulatory process. it dealt with the questions of sue and settle, it dealt with the questions of permits, it dealt with the fundamental issues of how the process of regulation was going to go forward. and by the way, it was voted on in a bipartisan basis and i think there will be growing sentiment to move this forward and we've had a lot of indication in the senate of interest for this reform process. remember, i said in the speech that the last time we reformed our regulatory process, harry truman was the president. i remember him. but most of you don't. we think there is a sentiment for doing this. i'm not worried about the
president's suggestion that he's going to veto it. i mean, that's part of the negotiation process. the white house always comes up with the things they may veto. well, let's see what's in it, let's see what the discussions bring and let's see how many people vote for it. you pick them out. i'll answer them. go ahead. >> thanks. bloomberg news. this is kind of a three-part question. >> you always have three-part questions. >> yeah. you sort of tempered your language a little bit on the oil exports issue, on the energy exports issue, whether there should be reform. i'm wondering, first, if you're calling for an outright end to the limits on oil exports. and if so, should that be coupled with the keystone pipeline legislation? and then finally, we have pretty much free oil exports with canada. i'm wondering if you think that that should be granted to mexico as well. thanks. >> i'll do the last part first. mexico is a long way from getting its energy industry, oil and gas and so on, organized the way that canada has.
but they're moving in a very thoughtful way to do that. and we think it's good for the nafta relationship. the three countries that are together on many trade and investment and security issues. so we would hope that we would treat them the same way. second, the keystone pipeline, i mean -- i'm going to behave today. that's a political joke. we have been through this thing in every possible way, everybody knows it creates jobs, the labor unions are vigorously for it. everybody knows with all the studies it does not create an environmental problem in this country. and the thing that really bothers me, the country that has been our friend, our partner our supporter in every way for as long as any of us can remember is canada.
and we're treating them very badly on this issue. and i think that's a mistake. on the question of exporting oil and gas, you really have to look at it in two circumstances. you know, we had a circumstance, what, 120 days ago where the prices were higher and there was a good surplus here in the united states. now it may go down some because of investments as the prices go down. but there is plenty of opportunity for us to export oil and gas, if they want reasonable regulation, that's fine. for the advantage of the american economy, to create jobs and to help stability around the world. you can just think about, how about the issue in the ukraine. there are a lot of opportunities
to look at the stability issues as well. thank you and that's the end of the three-part questions. you picking them or am i? >> i am. right here. >> hi. "national journal.” looking ahead to 2016, i have two questions for you. do you think the chamber will be as involved in g.o.p. primaries, and do you have a ballpark of what you think you guys will spend? >> primaries are created in two ways. one, people decide not to run or people locally decide to challenge someone. and we've already seen folks that are looking at whether they think running is a good idea. so i think there will be more opportunities. it's a long way to then. some people will temporarily assume those jobs or be appointed or even elected. but that creates an opportunity for primaries.
and i think -- i don't know, we had a conversation one day about, we could even have a primary on the democratic side that we'd be interested in. we think -- here's our fundamental one-sentence deal. we believe candidates matter more than anything else. we're looking for people who want to govern, who want to come to washington to join in the debate and the process and the responsibility of governing on behalf of their fellow citizens and we're going to support them. how much we're going to spend, i have no idea. it basically comes down to how much we do and how much we need. who's up? >> good morning. i'm with the a.p. many thanks for doing this. i would like to ask what are the chamber's goals this year for cuba, that you haven't mentioned in your speech? and also you said in the speech that immigration reform could be possible this year. but we see today that the
republicans, the house is about to vote on a bill that blocks executive action by president obama. could you please see how -- say how you see the solution possible this year and what is the specific initiative the chamber has on immigration. thank you. >> the immigration thing is -- what we're interested in is what i said in the speech. we need workers -- we're a country with people without jobs and jobs without people. we're working very hard to find jobs for the people that don't have them and we're working very hard to find people for jobs that need specific skills. it's why our hiring the heroes out of the military program works so well. and we really believe that an immigration program that provides people at both ends of the spectrum, you know, people going to our great universities and people who work in everything from hospitals and nursing homes and resorts and
agriculture, we need a way that companies can know who they're hiring and there's a good process in place there that seems to be ready to be put in fuller use. we need to deal with the borders and it's got to be a reasonable thoughtful process. and we have to figure out what to do with the people that are illegally here and give them some process to having legality in moving forward and i believe that the sentiment is growing across this country to do that. on the question -- oh, and by the way, on the issue of what they're voting on today, it's got not a lot to do with immigration. it has a lot to do with constitutional prerogatives of the president and of the congress. and i think it's fine they go about that. but there's a very simple way that the members of the house and senate can solve this problem. go pass an immigration bill, send it to the president and let him sign it. and that's the end of that problem.
on cuba, we've been involved on the cuban issue for a long time. we believe that the agreement and the decisions by the president on this are a good start. we only have three sentences to say about that right now today. number one, no matter what you're doing, if you're doing it for 50-plus years and it doesn't work, you ought to find something else. number two, if you look at the tenure of the current government and what their plans are, when the major changes will be, if you look at all the people from countries all over the world that are developing the economy over there, it is time for us to move. and number three, after the last time i was there, in the two weeks following, putin and then the president of china were there and i'd much rather that
we were deciding what we're going to do in cuba than them deciding what they're going to do. thank you very much. >> "tax notes.” i'm going to start with you, since you gave the speech. it took you about half an hour to get to tax reform, which i -- and you were -- it seemed like you were a little tepid when you were talking about it. you didn't seem to have a lot of confidence that it would happen this year, which is really unusual because i think everybody else i've talked to thinks it's definitely going to happen. and -- but i also want to ask -- yeah. maybe -- >> did you say the people you talk to think -- >> i was joking. that's not going to happen. but i want to go to bruce on this too. what's your take on that? i mean, it's a serious issue, there's been talk of compromise. but you seem to have very low expectations.
how are you guys approaching that issue? >> i'm going to answer that question, bruce will talk about the tax deal. if you look at the sequence of the things we talked about they're not -- their importance is not in the order in which they were done. you know that i'm very passionate about the last things i talked about. and by the way, we're realists about taxes. we're realists. and bruce will tell what you realism is. >> i think what tom tried to do in his speech, first and foremost, was highlight the most obvious opportunities for legislative outcome, if you look at the trade agenda, if you look at all the energy legislation, if you look at all the technology stuff. and infrastructure, which in part gets you to tax reform. i think first off we have two new chairmen of the tax writing committees. no one's going to pick up where the last person left off. they're going to start anew. i think over in the house chairman ryan has been hard at work on what he would more likely describe as process
reforms that are needed and necessary to facilitate achieving tax reform. some of that deals with dynamic scoring, some of that deals with budget issues. chairman hatch i think is really close to 700 pages of outlines of tax reform. i've been up and met with both of them and many others on this. i think tax reform is very hard to do. there's been a lot that suggests the administration and the tax writing committees and both chambers and both parties are roughly on the same page, 70% to 80%. that's good. of course the other 20% to 30% is the really, really hard stuff to do. jacob blue had a meeting yesterday with some small business groups trying to rev this up. i think the difference here is we began last fall a campaign on comprehensive tax reform. we're still engaged in that most heavily right now on social media.
but stay tuned. we'll be doing more and we'll echo chamber that throughout the year. the business community is always going to be divided. by definition this is a winners and losers exercise. it didn't take two years in 1986 as everybody says, it took about five and another year of transition. we have a ways to go. we're all in on tax reform. it is one of the biggest things to do. it has one of the biggest potential impacts overall on the economy and our competitiveness and g.d.p. growth. >> hi. "politico.” my question has to do with t.p.a. in your speech you said that the president's going to have to -- fight with members -- round up support in his own party to get t.p.a. approved. i wondered what is your sense of how many democrats are needed in the house to make this a bipartisan effort and are you
concerned that there might be, you know, a large number of republicans who would be loath to vote for the bill because they don't want to give obama the authority? >> every president since jerry ford or something have had trade promotion authority. our reading of this, having been all over the team, all over the congress, talking to just about everybody, is that there is plenty of support there. we further read that the president has begun to make it clear, first of all, to his own team that he wants the cabinet and others up there working on this. i'm hopeful he'll be very aggressive on it in the state of the union. he knows and he's had some meetings just recently organizing the white house and others, he knows that they're
going to have to have an effort to deal in two areas. one, with the necessary number of democrats, and that means dealing with labor. and he knows that he's got to spend some time assuring republicans of what it's going to lead to. but we believe that there are plenty, plenty of votes to get this done. i believe we will get it done and i'm very encouraged that this could be the first step in a three or four-step process that would strengthen the economy of the united states for a long time to come. >> if i could quickly add to your question. if i remember correctly, i'm sure somebody in the room will check if i'm wrong and report it, but i think only about 25 house democrats voted for t.p.a. the last time. i'm not sure all 25 of them are still in the house this time. in the senate if i remember correctly it was about 21 senate
democrats that voted for it. i believe only six of them are there. the point is, you know, there hasn't been a lot of trade votes, there aren't a lot of members of congress that understand t.p.a. and now we have to add, don't forget, t.a.a. as part of that journey to accomplish t.p.a. i agree with tom. this does get done. the president's clearly going to have some challenges on his side of the aisle in and outside of congress. he's going to have to work to bring some democrats with him. but let's not overlook the republican leadership in both chambers is on the same page with the president, wanting to deliver t.p.a. to him. >> "wall street journal.” i was hoping you could give us more specifics about the legislative priorities you have regarding financial regulation. for instance, you mentioned fsoc. but do you think congressional action is needed beyond what fsoc itself is doing?
and then also, on cyber. what specific legislation do you think is needed there? >> let's do the cyber first. as you know, over the years there have been efforts to seek out a piece of legislation that would help us deal with what was at the time a problem that people were sort of spending time looking at. and we never quite got there. and one of the reasons was that there was, in the government, a view that there should be a law that told everybody how they had to react to cyber difficulties. well, it would take, you know, about every 12 minutes we change how we respond to those things. so we challenged that. by the time they wrote the law
and wrote the regulations, it would have changed 1,000 times. but right now what we're saying, and there's a much, much more educated understanding of this subject than there was years ago, but what we need now so that companies and governments at home and abroad, let's say american companies and governments at home and abroad because we have companies overseas, have to be able to exchange information with the government and in some instances between and among companies that have similar problems so that we, we the american economic system, the american system of government, is in a position to defend itself instantly and to learn from the problems of others. and we believe that a bill that addresses the issue that provides legality for companies to do that, within appropriate limits, is very, very important
so that we can work together to avoid the really difficult things that you've seen and you can multiply those out as being far more. on the issue of financial regulation, i mean, i think the first thing to understand, in fact, i'll just say three things. the absolute frustration of running a bank or a financial institution and having a half a dozen regulators in your building telling you how to do -- what you're supposed to do every day, and then being in absolute conflict with one another is not a good way to do business and there has to be some strengthening of that process, including some oversight by the congress. the second thing is, all this time since dodd-frank we still have a third of the regulations that have not been completed.
and only, you know, we can only begin to imagine what that's going to do when added to what's already here. the last thing that i think is very, very important is that the regulators are going far beyond where an overkill law already went. and if it doesn't exactly fit what they want to do, they decide, they'll decide what the law is. well, you noticed we've been in the courts on some of those issues quite successfully. and our issue, we were lucky that we dealt with the derivative issue, not for the people who were the outside users, the companies, not the financial institutions, but we're going to have more of that. you're going to see places. and why would you not? i mean, you write this thing it's a tome, it's still two or
three years from getting completed, it was written in anger and written in a hurry. if you don't think you're going to need technical corrections or discussion and explanation, then we're never going to get anywhere. you guys know a lot about that. i hope you'll write on it extensively because it's a real >> i would add two quick comments. we continue to be concerned about the cfpb. this is an agency that has one person running it, doesn't really have anybody surrounding it, has basically an unlimited budget, isn't under congressional oversight. if you look at the fsoc issue and take the meth light example. this is an example which tom mentioned in his speech about the need for government reform and regulation. here you have a group of regulators who couldn't identify, let alone define, what the systemic risk behavior was in the insurance face. they couldn't decide over here
what was the systemic risk activity. and then they name four companies as systemic risk outside of banking. one of them is obviously going to correctly challenge that because definitionally, if you can't identify the behavior, how do i become a systemic risk institution? so something is awry in this whole process of how we're racing to regulate. >> cnn. could you talk a little bit more about the 2016, how you see the presidential race shaping up and also could you specifically
address the fact that mitt romney is thinking about getting in the race? >> well, i'll be glad to make a couple of comments but i have to, you know, first put out my disclaimers. we don't actively participate in the presidential election. we of course comment during the process on the policy issues involved. and we are interested, of course, on who all the candidates are. just think about it. every morning in america, about 25 or 30 people get up and look in the mirror and say, good morning, mr. president, god morning, madam president, and it's the great thing about the american system. it's a great thing. and it's going to have an effect, you name the time, is it six months from now? we thought it would be, but now all of a sudden we're, you know a lot of up front people, it's going to have an effect on what we're trying to do on the other very important policy, regulatory and legislative issues that need to be addressed. and by the way on the global issues we're dealing with. on romney, not talking about him as a presidential candidate, he's a skilled businessman, he's certainly gotten some experience on being in the presidential business. and i think he's a talented guy.
but i could say the same thing about a lot of people. men and women. i think it's going to be fascinating. but here's my deal. i think the american people in elections in the house elections in the senate, elections for governor and therefore elections for president of the united states are going to look very, very carefully for people that share their values, but bring competence and experience to the process. if you went and looked at all the polls, there was a great concern in the last election where people go to washington and govern and do they have the competence and the experience to do so? >> good morning. elizabeth williamson with the "wall street journal.” if i could get you to go a little further on 2016. and maybe throw you a slab of red meat and ask you to comment on elizabeth warren, when you
talk about economic populism, is that that's who you're referring to chiefly? >> no, i think there are a lot of economic populists running around in and out of the congress. elizabeth warren is a person who has some views we don't share. she's a member of the senate. this is what i'm talking about right now. the idea that people should not be confirmed to serve in the government because they have experience in the subject for which they would be assigned is a very unique idea, isn't it? it may work in the senate. but it sure doesn't work when you're doing it with complicated global financial issues, for example. second, the idea that enterprise and american companies should be more vigorously regulated by the government and in fact controlled by the government is
a view that we don't share. a very pleasant woman if you sit down and have a cup of tea with her. or drink. but we don't share her views on the economy and on where the american economic system ought to be headed. and i don't think, if she runs for president, i don't think the american people will share her views either. >> inside health policy. you mentioned it briefly in your speech but i was wondering if you could expand on your health care approach this year and if it's impacted at all or shaped at all by the pending litigation and if that's kind of a sign toward repeal and replace strategies or kind of the smaller tweaks like the 40-hour workweek and things like that.
>> bruce is going to enlighten you on that. i would simply say that health care is 17% or 18% of our economy. so legislation of high significance in terms of many changes in the system is very difficult to implement and very difficult to rationalize. the president and the white house have been basically rewriting it as we go along. which is sort of a unique perspective for us. but there are going to be changes because it is so omnipresent in everything that we do that we've got to find out what works and what doesn't and we'll be a part of that. bruce. >> couple points. first off, we'll be doing health care legislation, in my opinion, forever. because it is about 1/6th of the overall economy. there is no magic wand in this space at all.
we think there are some serious structural issue problems with the law that's been enacted. our members have to deal with them so our objective and our role and responsibility is on behalf of our members. so that runs the gamut from the 30 to 40-hour deal. interest in medical liability, which wasn't mentioned. we're interested in a whole host of things that make this a little easier. yeah we have objections to the employer mandate. we're not involved at all in the litigation. i think the litigation depending upon what the court does decide, could have a huge impact on the law going forward because of subsidies and who gets them and how they get them and all of that. medicaid isn't really a business
organization issue per se. tom mentioned i think there's bipartisan support for repealing the medical device tax. i think we have expressed concern and interest with the health insurance tax. they do nothing but make this whole process more expensive for everybody to get into the system. but, look, there aren't 60 votes in the senate to pass a repeal bill. president obama is still president. he's not going to sign a law if it ever got to his desk that repeals this signature achievement, quote-unquote. so we're not working for repeal. even though we were actively working to defeat this from ever becoming a law. but now the objective is, it is a law, we're four or five years into this thing and we've got to continue to try to improve it at every turn. that's what we're going to do. >> i would add one or sentence. it's very interesting to watch our friends and neighbors and family try and deal first with
the existing system and now with the changing system, which causes them to lose, reapply for their health insurance, find out their co-pays have changed or whatever. i'm not making a value judgment about the content. i'm making a value judgment about how difficult it is for everyday americans. and i'm not talking about that guy that worked on and suggested they weren't very smart. i'm suggesting they are smart. but they aren't informed because if you try and pick up that stuff and the explanations and try and inform yourself, you're lucky if you work for a company that takes care of arranging your health insurance. if you have to do it yourself, it is one of the scariest things you can ever imagine. >> hi, reuters.
the obama administration says they're going to unveil new rules today that aim to slash methane emissions from oil and gas production. i think by up to 45% by the year 2025. i know you sort of touched on emissions in your speech. but i wondered what you specifically thought about this proposal to regulate methane gas. thank you. >> bruce? >> we just talked about it. the first comment, it just came out as you know, so you now where we were, we haven't had a chance to review it. from what i understand, you're right. it's a 45% reduction by 2025. i'm told it doesn't define how we would ever achieve that through a regulation. yet over here on the other side of that is another reality that says in about the last five years u.s. industry has reduced methane emissions by about 11%. by the way, fracking oil by
greater than 70%. all of what e.p.a. had previously forecast as undershot, meaning the private sector has exceeded emission reductions voluntarily far beyond what they had hoped to achieve. so you're kind of stopping right away wondering, wait a second, we're moving forward here with pretty significant reductions, massive on the fracking side and now the administration comes out with another kind of one-size-fits-all regulation that's going to have an impact on one of the most innovative industries in the country. without any definition of how you achieve it. so we're concerned. >> hi, japanese tv network. on cuba, can you tell us what kind of benefits the u.s. business community can get from possible u.s.-cuba commercial exchange? and are you planning to visit
havana again this year? thank you. >> i think the benefits should be measured sequentially. the first benefit comes from the united states of america. cuba is off the coast of florida. there are people from all over the world down there, they've built one of the most modest ports to handle all of those ships coming through, the new ships, the panama canal, paid for by the brazilians, the dredging paid for by the germans, the cranes and the computer technology provided by the chinese. there's a major oil drilling and refining operation, gas and oil, which is a joint partnership with the canadians. and we're not there, except on food.
the second and very, very important thing that's critical to the united states is the national security and geopolitical reality. we don't want to go back to a point where others who don't wish us well or who are competitive not in an economic sense but in a geopolitical sense to set up shop 91 miles from one of our major cities. and we then on top of all that there are extraordinary opportunities for american companies there. you've all seen the pictures. now, it's not the biggest population in the world. but there's a chance to do two things. one is sell a bunch of cars there, and two, go into the car business of antique cars. and by the way, there is an unbelievable demand by the
people living in cuba for consumer products, technology and other things, somebody's going to sell them. it's not going to be all us. because look at these other countries who have their companies in there already. but the bottom line is, it is now time for us to do something here. you all notice that the dissidents were released yesterday. >> hi, investment news. going back to financial regulation. how exactly do you see it unfolding, for instance, the technical corrections bill that's going to come out of the house today, do you think the senate is going to embrace it in the form that it comes out of the house or is the senate going to take a different approach and go through regular order and do those things one by one, how do you see that unfolding? and second, if i may just real quick, what are you going to do to try to stop the fiduciary bill? >> i would imagine the senate might be motivated to take up the house-passed bill, assuming
it passes and gets there. mitch mcconnell has said he wants to do everything through regular order. as you all well know. although he has pointed out on the pipeline issue, it's not an open-ended regular order meaning he's not going to let perpetual amendments in the hundreds go on forever. i don't have a clue what the senate's going to do on this and it's hard to predict. i would assume pass it. or come close to passing it. it seems to me that the -- is the concern and effort in both chambers right now is to try from the leadership stage to build as much bipartisan support to move these things as quickly as they can, let the president decide what he's going to do. >> remember, the end of the week the leaders and the members of
the house and the senate will be together for their meeting and we're hoping that when you put together the regular order issue in the senate and a cooperative relationship between the leaders in both houses that we'll get to some of these issues. in terms of the issue out of labor, we're particularly concerned about a lot of things coming out of labor. remember, labor sets the rules for how you hire people, how you pay their benefits, how you pay them, what you have to do and the regulations on the workplaces and all of that. and there are lots and lots of things cooking over there that we're going to have to deal with and we hope to deal with them with logical arguments, we hope to deal with them with compelling facts and when we finally get through with it, in a lot of those we're going to have to deal with them in a court of law and you know we're really good at that. >> "the washington post.” if you look at the current rates
of growth, it seems to be hard to make the case that obamacare and dodd-frank and the other policies of this administration have destroyed the free enterprise system. do you think those warnings of yours from a few years ago were overwrought or do you think things would be fundamentally and significantly better now if not for that? >> did we project destruction of the free enterprise? >> something very much like that. >> you're crazy. >> find one place that we projected the destruction of the free enterprise system and i'll buy you lunch. >> where are we going? >> i don't know. >> your call. you're paying. guaranteed. >> we worry about people going after the enterprise system. but we don't project its destruction. and i think it's very, very interesting to look at how the government of the united states has gotten its deficit down to
where it has, with the $98 billion out of the fed, with hundreds of billions over time out of extorted settlements out of companies and other issues, but when you look at where this stuff's going in just the next years, and the government's own projection of how huge that deficit's going to be, most of it by the way, a huge amount of it tied into entitlements, i think you have to be really careful. by the way, they want to do more tax increases. there's certainly the cost of these regulatory changes are extraordinary. but the bottom line is very simple. we need to be alert, we need to understand the challenges and the predictable crisis that we face, and we need to do something about it or we'll pay a price for it. >> hi. "politico.” i had a few questions about the gas tax.
first of all, are you guys attached to the gas tax as sort of the funding source for the highway bill, or would you be open to using tax reform or something like that? secondly in your speech you said, you know, i'm not sure if you were using rhetoric or something you were proposing one or two dimes of the savings we've gotten from falling gas prices, 20 cents seems to be a little higher than what most other people have proposed for a gas tax increase. is that the range you're looking for? >> there was an or between the first and second dime. or and. listen, this is a very simple issue. we've gone 20, what, one, two three years since we've increased the federal fuel tax. during that time everybody in this room has gone from having a car that goes -- gets x miles a gallon to having a car that gets many more miles per gallon. which means you're driving, and same thing on the trucking business which i know a lot about. and the bottom line is we're driving as many mimes or more
miles on the road and we're collecting half of the funds that we were to repair the road and extend the road to where it needs to go. and the bridges and the take care of transit. and everybody's thought about all the ideas where they could hide the, quote, gas tax. we could put it in something else and make believe it didn't happen. we can have an infrastructure bank. yeah, you can, but you can't have an infrastructure bank until you have a core system that allows you to pay for it. we've watched four to six states a year increase their own gas tax and it's a two-day story. what's needed here is a realization that there are a lot of holes in the road, there's a lot of bridges in this country that don't work and pretty soon we're going to have a crisis. and we need a way to pay for this and because we're going to do it.
my recommendation to the leadership is that this is a hell of a lot simpler than a lot of other things they're talking about. >> it's interesting, if you think about this issue. so you had a recession which reduced consumption. you've had the vehicle mile increase that tom mentioned which has been rather dramatic. you've got another thing of millennials not necessarily driving cars the way, say, my generation did. so there's a lot of factors and forces at play here that have done, what? they've driven down the receipts of the trust fund close to 30%. since about 2007, so it's pretty clear the direction it's going in. repair and renovation costs by the way, land, labor, materials, etc., are going up rather dramatically. this isn't free, to be paid for. the people that complain about it being a, quote, tax increase, let's not forget that congress a
year ago did on the other side of the coin entirely raise the inland water fee tax, ok, nine cents. so at some point reality begins to hit. i think it's encouraging more today that you, you know, from the vehicle mile tax, which has been discussed, to this, but you have more members of the house and senate right now saying, well, maybe we ought to take a look at this. maybe we ought to take a look at the tax, maybe we ought to look at indexing. you didn't have those conversations even a year ago. so that's a big improvement. this isn't going to be done for free. >> hi. inside e.p.a. i have a couple questions on the regulatory reform issue. first, you talked about a bill for crafting regulations that passed the house yesterday. are you looking at any particular legislation for the other prongs that have agenda? and on reforming enforcement of existing rules, you talked about some practices you want to see stopped. can you go into more detail on what agencies are using those, i guess you call them underhanded
enforcement tricks? >> you want to go on the first part? >> the bills that tom mentioned were the regulatory accountability act, which fundamentally is designed to reform the procedure act, which is the single statute on the books from 1942 or 1946 that guides the rulemaking and regulators in a regulating process. considering it's 2015, we think taking a good look at how you modernize that in today's world is probably appropriate. and a bipartisan group of house and senate members agree with us, based upon co-sponsorship. the permits streamlining, it shouldn't take 12, 15 or 20 years to get a permit for anything in this country. which is kind of what it's been taking. we've kind of modeled off of what they've done on the highway side, so all comments should be heard, everybody should be considered.
but there's got to be a timeline where you make a decision. this just can't go on and on forever. the third piece of that is the sue and settle game and this is one where we think some organizations have taken unfair advantage of a legitimate legal process which is called sue the e.p.a. the courts are deferential to e.p.a. in this case. they always settle. treasury writes a check. and then reimburses, so this is almost a self-funding mechanism for some of those groups. >> and the worst part of that is you can't challenge it the same way you could a regulation. so the person or group that initiates the suit makes a deal with the e.p.a., they get what they want in the decision from the e.p.a., then they get paid for it and then you can't challenge it. the same way you could if it were a regulation. >> so we think that kind of game needs to stop. now the general counsel of the e.p.a. has agreed with us and started to release some of that information.
which by the way for years they wouldn't release. part of the regulatory reform concerns we've had on some of the standard setting where e.p.a. says, you know, our analyses and science tells us and we say, can we see the science? and then the game is no, a university did it, we don't own it. you go to the university, they say, we did it for e.p.a., we're not permitted to give it to you. we're like the ping pong ball going back and forth. we're saying in those instances e.p.a. should forthrightly bring forward those analyses and studies. we'd like to see in them real cost-benefit analyses overall in terms of the entire impact on the economy. i think you guys and gals know we did a study over several years on this sue and settle game and permitting and identified more than 350 projects -- by the way interestingly, over half of which were for term and renewable energy infrastructure projects that got stopped because of this sue and settle game.
so, there's a lot going on in this space that the onion needs to be peeled back a little bit and the e.p.a. needs to be a lot more transparent. >> one more question. >> "national law journal and court counsel.” over here. for 2015, is reforming the false claims act a priority for the chamber? >> yes. >> can you talk a little bit more about what you are hoping to accomplish? >> let me hook you up with matt webb who i think is here. we'll get him because i know the other people in the legal reform institute are not here today. but matt is here. we think there are some concerns with the practices in terms of how the corrupt practices act is being used to go after
companies. >> i'm talking about the false claims act. >> the false claims act. then i'm definitely going to put you to matt. somebody get matt down here. we'll get him to you. >> "financial advisor" magazine. two questions. are you threatening a lawsuit if d.o.l. comes out with a fiduciary rule? >> no, i think we'll be working on lots of the other options of debate. if we go to normal order in the senate, there will be opportunities to have hearings and look at that issue. if it finally comes down as something, you know, that was dealt with before, if we have to go to court, we will. we don't threaten people with lawsuits. we just sue them. >> the other question is, what parts of the dodd-frank do you think you can repeal in this session of congress?
>> we're not out to repeal all sorts of parts of dodd-frank. what we're interested in doing is making the technical changes, finding some rational center between the conflicting interpretations that we're getting from the regulatory agencies and dealing with those things that were written without understanding of how it affects what's happening in the rest of the economy, what's happening in our businesses around the world. look, dodd-frank is here. it's not going away. but it is so big, it is so pervasive that we have got to make those technical challenges. and by the way, you go pick every major piece of legislation you ever see in this country and that's exactly what has to happen. look what's going on in health care. it makes what's going on in dodd-frank look like not very significant.
we're going to be there, we're going to work on those changes we're going to work on interpretation and we're going to work very, very hard to make sure that there is some reordering of how it is regulated by -- by wlom? by one, by two, by 10, by a dozen agencies? all in conflict? that's got to stop. let me just say one thing. because we're not going to take any more questions. we have a lot of our staff here that deal with the issues you're interested in. and you know many of them. and they're standing over there and over there and they'll be very happy to talk to you. i want to thank you for coming. and i want to wish you a very happy 2015. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> gop members are headed for the retreat in pennsylvania and
will be talking about how to strategize over the next two years. will be talking about what they are doing and saying tomorrow. that is live on c-span at 11:45 a.m. on c-span. later john boehner and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell hold a conference tomorrow life on c-span -- live on speeds been -- c-span. >> here are some of the program for the weekend. the wall street journal editor bret stephens argues that our entities -- enemies and competitors are taking advantage of the situation abroad in the u.s.. at 10:00, steve israel on his recent novel